side controlled by the enemy. Hence Athens engaged in defensive war on the east and offensive on the west coast; the Peloponnesians reversed this.
Parallels could be found in the map of the world to-day, or in the map of Europe of a hundred years ago; but it should always be borne in mind that in this old Greek war there were two elements not to be found in many other wars. In the first place, there was in each belligerent confederacy an element politically favourable to the other side. In every 'allied' state there was a party which, being out of power, favoured the 'other side' as its own hope of returning to power.[1] The sentiment is one that after the lapse of over two thousand years is just beginning faintly to assert itself again.
So in the Anglo-Boer War there was in England a party whose sympathies were in some measure with the Boers, and, more markedly, in the Russo-Japanese War, we have seen in Russia sections of the population seeing in Japanese victories their own political salvation. Though for different reasons, this situation existed acutely in the Peloponnesian war, and the strategies of both sides were coloured with it.
The war began in B.C. 431. Up to B.C. 424 it was chiefly in favour of Athens; then the tide of fortune turned, and, despite Athenian naval victories, ended ultimately in the destruction of the entire Athenian
- ↑ So much was this the case that when the oligarchy in an 'allied state' favoured Athens, the democratical party sympathised with Sparta.
